As I’ve pointed out before, if one considers an infinite time, the probability of any event no matter how unlikely (if not prohibited by physical laws), becomes very likely. It makes perfect sense within that framework that nothingness could have split into a negative and a positive. The idea of something happening by not an accident implies motivation, and one can’t have motivation without an entity to be motivated. I don’t believe or accept the concept of such an entity.

I believe that there is no right or wrong in the universe separate from that assigned by sentient beings. I certainly believe in sentient life, because I see it every day (well maybe not in the red stated). And, it’s likely that it has evolved on other worlds, too, however, it’s just way, way beyond reason to imagine a being which existed prior to the existence of the universe, and which had the capability to form the universe.

I don’t believe in gods of any kind, and yet I don’t believe the universe is an “accident”, either. Haven’t you ever read The Blind Watchmaker? Things are the way they are for reasons. And yes, that makes me an out-and-out Atheist.

Hmmm ... well, it gets a bit fiddly sometimes, Occam. I mean, it’s not really an accident that snowflakes have six limbs. That has to do with the shape of a water molecule. But neither is it directed or motivated by a conscious being.

Similarly, there is a sort of direction to evolution by natural selection—in general, the environment selects for traits which increase fitness. But of course this isn’t consciously directed, it’s just that the chips tend to fall where they are most probable to fall.

OK, I probably should have been much more precise and specified something like “within the framework of the physical laws that define the organization of the universe” and “outside of large sample probability.”

You have it backwards. For example, as you walk down the block, you are hit by a small meteorite. That was an accident, and there’s no motivation involved.

Try to think of something that happens that’s not an accident yet does not have motivation of a living being involved somewhere along the line, even if distantly, unconsciously, or misdirected.

Occam

I wouldn’t see that as an accident. I kind of think sentience is required for accidents, and that labeling something an accident exists only in that sentience. An accident would be an unintended or unexpected result, those expectations being declared by the sentient being. To correlate that with your meteor theory, it couldn’t be an accident because I would have no control or expectations of a meteor hitting me just as I could not say that the meteor hitting someone else was a “success”.

Signature

“I say one of these days we will look through one of our microscopes and find ourselves staring into God’s Eyes and the first one who blinks loses his testicles.” Dr. Harry Wolper, Creator

Well, OL, usually “accident” is used to mean something like “unintended consequence”. Clearly, that lack of intention can come from a conscious being (It was an accident that I hit him in the head with a baseball), but it can also be from some impersonal natural force. (So called “acts of God” in insurance contracts are really large natural accidents).

As I’ve pointed out before, if one considers an infinite time, the probability of any event no matter how unlikely (if not prohibited by physical laws), becomes very likely.

That means that if God is not impossible then God probably exists.
No?

No.

Meh. You tell me “no” yet answer “yes” in effect. See below.

Occam said, “if not prohibited by physical laws.”

I should have picked on him for that one, also. Are physical laws descriptive or prescriptive? If the former then there is no prohibition based on physical law. If the latter then what type of physical laws are supposed to project on nothingness? Is it coherent to speak of a physical nothing?

God is impossible.

There’s the “yes” I was talking about (“That means that if God is not impossible then God probably exists”).
You’re agreeing with me and telling me (I suppose) how it is that God is impossible.

Complexity doesn’t precede simplicity.

If that’s the case then you leave Occam to explain how positive and negative can stem from the apparently simpler stage of nothingness. It seems to me that it would be difficult to conceive of something simpler than nothing. It’s not like nothing has a bunch of moving parts (prior to differentiating into positive and negative).

Why would something as omnipotent as god create something as primitive as Sean Hannity?

You should have gone for the joke right away. You never really meant to defend Occam’s reasoning, did you?

I don’t believe in gods of any kind, and yet I don’t believe the universe is an “accident”, either. Haven’t you ever read The Blind Watchmaker? Things are the way they are for reasons. And yes, that makes me an out-and-out Atheist.

I won’t get into a long argument over explanations and bore you all to tears and George and Occam I won’t mention free will either.

I’ll just say the fact is either:

1) the universe must be the way it is and there is no reason other than it couldn’t be otherwise.

2)Or the universe could be in a multitude of different states including not being here at all, in which case there is no reason why it’s one way rather than another.

3)Or there is something more to it.

What I mean by believing it’s a giant cosmic accident is believing that there is nothing more to it.